Point Pleasant pays for tourists' good times

NE News ConsortiumDuring the day, visitors pack the beaches at Point Pleasant. But at night, after the bars close, they fill the streets, too.

By Vincent R. Barrella
In her recent op-ed piece, Marilou Halvorsen, Jenkinson’s marketing director, began by painting a picture of a quaint, family-oriented boardwalk under attack by narrow-minded residents. She neglected to include scenes of residential neighborhoods under siege by “Jersey Shore” wannabes.

Point Pleasant Beach is a town of approximately 5,000. The occupancy of Jenkinson’s club and its adjacent competitor bar is about 3,500. These 3,500 are not there to enjoy an “alcoholic beverage from time to time,” as she put it. They are there to party and to party hard. Post closing, they pour out onto the streets of residential neighborhoods, where a growing number use our lawns as toilets and bedrooms, while others scream obscenities as they stumble along in search of their cars or rental houses.

Halvorsen’s claim that her employer recently held a face-to-face meeting with residents to hear their concerns is disingenuous. Jenkinson’s was one of approximately 15 leading businesses from the tourist industry I invited to a meeting to address the rising number of resident complaints, as well as arrests. I don’t know what recommendations she claims have been put into place, but a clear sign of good faith would be the immediate implementation of a significantly earlier service (one drink) versus sale (multiple drinks) last call as recommended by our police department.

Halvorsen tossed out unsubstantiated revenue and job figures in support of her claim that Jenkinson’s is Point Pleasant Beach’s economic engine. She didn’t mention infrastructure costs the town incurs, such as a state Department of Community Affairs recommendation that we have 24 full-time police officers, or that we hire double or triple that number of special police officers during the summer. We are a town of 5,000 that is required to maintain an infrastructure to support 2 million tourists.

There is no question that tourism is good for the state; it receives tens of millions of dollars of sales and income tax revenue from the industry. Our town last year got back only $3,401 of Consolidated Municipal Property Tax Relief Act aid. Hardly a fair exchange.

Point Pleasant Beach does not own its beaches; they are privately owned and operated by businesses such as Jenkinson’s. In the one-size-fits-all, post-tax levy cap world imposed by Trenton, our tourism industry cannot realistically expect a continuation of taxpayer-provided service subsidies. The town had to furlough employees for 17 days, freeze police salaries and still raise taxes simply to balance this year’s budget.

In December, in an effort to develop alternative revenue sources, I met with state Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff regarding local option revenue initiatives. Two months later, after thanking me for “meeting with his staff,” he advised me that the governor had rejected my plea.

The local initiatives sought were a 2 percent impact fee on the sale of alcoholic beverages, the same right to assess an impact fee on private parking lots that New Jersey’s larger municipalities can (there are 1,600 privately owned, paid parking spots in Point Pleasant Beach, as opposed to 700 municipally owned spots), and an extension of the current hotel/motel tax to seasonal rentals.

According to Halvorsen, an additional 20 cents added to the cost of a $10 drink will cause the tourism industry to dry up and result in the closing of a $55 million per year boardwalk business! Neither she nor the governor’s office can seem to grasp that the greatest threat to the tourism industry is Point Pleasant Beach’s inability to continue to provide the clean, safe environment that has allowed the industry to grow and prosper.
In June, and again in July, I wrote the governor, seeking to meet with him. Had he stopped in Point Pleasant Beach on his Shore tour, he would have learned firsthand what the reality is and the state might not be suggesting that we solve the problem with budget gimmicks and Band-Aids.